Cont: Mueller Investigation pt3

Status
Not open for further replies.
There sure are lots of "ordinary Russian citizens" in this tangled web.
[paging Emily's Cat to the red courtesy phone]
 
quadraginta said:
I don't think he's all that famous. Maybe a barely 'D List' trying to get some face time on the talking head circuit.

He lucked out with getting Stormy as a client, but any other publicity hungry mouthpiece could have filled his shoes.

She was the celebrity. He was just riding her coattails.
Click to expand...

Look, it worked, now folks are talking about Avenetti. A TBD masterstroke of diversion.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
Meanwhile, will you join me in denouncing the Benghazi hearings, since all the investigators were Republicans, and therefore hopelessly biased?
Click to expand...

Oh dear.... that is completely untrue.... Unless you are characterizing the Democrats on those committees as advocates for the Obama/Clinton junta...

Darat said:
The strange thing is that a "perjury trap" is such an easy trap to avoid that only the most stupid and/or arrogant of people can ever be caught by "it".

Indeed its very name is a misnomer, why not call it the "don't tell lies trap"?
Click to expand...

Oh double dear, we have been over this repeatedly.

Here is a primer written by a legal defense expert explaining it:

A very popular response to concerns about a perjury trap is the response "just tell the truth!"

This is rainbows-and-unicorns fantasy.
 
If the Mueller investigation was finished and the report released tomorrow I don't think it would change anything. For those who have been paying attention it would just be further confirmation of the evidence we've already seen pointing to lying, obstruction, and corruption. For the Trump cult, they're already inoculated to the lying, obstruction, and corruption and the report would just be another among the thousands of 'fake news perpetrated by the deep state Trump haters'. And the Republican controlled senate has already shown they have no problem going along with the corruption and I see no reason why the report, no matter how damning, would change that.

If in 2020 we take back the senate then it will matter. But until then...
 
Captain_Swoop said:
Trump Tweets

Oh, I get it! I am a very good developer, happily living my life, when I see our Country going in the wrong direction (to put it mildly). Against all odds, I decide to run for President & continue to run my business-very legal & very cool, talked about it on the campaign trail...

...Lightly looked at doing a building somewhere in Russia. Put up zero money, zero guarantees and didn’t do the project. Witch Hunt!
Click to expand...
He’s beginning to see the red mist.
 
If the Mueller investigation was finished and the report released tomorrow I don't think it would change anything. For those who have been paying attention it would just be further confirmation of the evidence we've already seen pointing to lying, obstruction, and corruption. For the Leftists, they're already inoculated to the lying, obstruction, and corruption and the report would just be spun by the never-Trump media like MSNBC and CNN and other Trump haters'. Thank god the Republican controlled senate has already shown they have no problem staunching the corruption and I see no reason why the report, no matter how damning to Mueller and his gang, would change that.

In 2020 the GOP will hold the senate. But until then...

It is very legal and it is very cool.
 
Last edited:
The Big Dog said:
If the Mueller investigation was finished and the report released tomorrow I don't think it would change anything. For those who have been paying attention it would just be further confirmation of the evidence we've already seen pointing to lying, obstruction, and corruption. For the Leftists, they're already inoculated to the lying, obstruction, and corruption and the report would just be spun by the never-Trump media like MSNBC and CNN and other Trump haters'. Thank god the Republican controlled senate has already shown they have no problem staunching the corruption and I see no reason why the report, no matter how damning to Mueller and his gang, would change that.

In 2020 the GOP will hold the senate. But until then...

It is very legal and it is very cool.
Click to expand...

I like that you say that people on the left are immune to lies. Says a lot about people on the right.
 
The Big Dog said:
Oh dear.... that is completely untrue.... Unless you are characterizing the Democrats on those committees as advocates for the Obama/Clinton junta...
Click to expand...

Um, we don't usually refer to duly elected heads of state as a "junta".

But cute. Mighty cute.
 
Shorter Rudy, "We can't rule out obstructing justice."

A day after Donald Trump told the New York Post that pardoning Paul Manafort is “not off the table,” the president’s lawyer dismissed the idea that he was sending a message to his besieged former campaign chairman that relief was on the way.

Rudy Giuliani told The Daily Beast on Thursday that the president’s interview remarks were “not a signal” to Manafort but merely a comment on the extent of his constitutional prerogatives.

“He has the constitutional power to, some time in the future, either pardon or not pardon. That doesn’t mean they’re gonna get a pardon! But, I'm sorry, the presidential power is there,” Giuliani emphasized. “The president, whether he says it or not, he has the power to do it.”

He added that, “no president has ever said in advance, ‘I'm not going to pardon anyone.’”
Click to expand...
 
 
The Shrike said:
Unconvinced. This doesn't explain how telling the truth puts one in jeopardy. It simply arm waves the common sense assumption that your questioners might ask misleading, unethical questions. So? Refuse to answer anything until you can seek the advice of legal counsel or, better, have your lawyer with you during questioning.
See also

"Were you aware of the meeting at Trump Tower between X and Y on date Z?" =/= "Have you stopped beating your wife?"
Click to expand...

:eek:

That is literally the point of the analysis.

re-read it again and let me know what part you don't understand.
 
autumn1971 said:
So you are contending that the people involved in the relevant questioning did not have legal council?

Boy, that is a stupid assertion, care to back it up?
Click to expand...

Hooboy, ladies and gentlemen, I want to to invite you to perhaps the finest example and why there is a Rule of So and why it is so important. Wowsers.

No, that is not what I am contending at all, not in the slightest although I agree that is a stupid assertion, I mean for Christ's sake, how in the name of the Lord did you draw that conclusion from my citation to a legal analysis of perjury trap?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom